So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!

P.S.: THAT'S A FACT

of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.

So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!

P.S.: THAT'S A FACT

of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.

Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.

So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!

P.S.: THAT'S A FACT

of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.

Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.

what i do that most people here dont is to think logically, they automatically dismiss things without really explaining why it isnt the way im saying. tell me how what im saying about the selfishness isnt true, im open for discussion

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. * Argument from "authority". * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). * Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). * Confusion of correlation and causation. * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack. * Suppressed evidence or half-truths. * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .

In this case you are using appeal to ignorance. Because it cannot be proven wrong does not make it true...it simply means that it cannot be proven. My suggestion is that you think about all of these things the next time you open your mouth, and work through it like a check list. You'd be surprised how quickly you will improve.

Maybe because you can't explain it simply in one sentence? What makes you think EVERYONE is alike to begin with? You can't just give one explanation and have it apply to everyone on earth, everyone is different. But of course you don't know that. You must think you're "Special" :)

Maybe because you can't explain it simply in one sentence? What makes you think EVERYONE is alike to begin with? You can't just give one explanation and have it apply to everyone on earth, everyone is different. But of course you don't know that. You must think you're "Special" :)

yes everyone is different BUT they are work from gaining something for themselves, everything they ever do is selfish by the 2 different methods i described, its just common sense. I dont understand why its so hard to believe that.

everything a person ever does is for him/herself. Just give an example of an act that isnt selfish and my point will become invalid

What's your damn point? You won't take any proof of anything, so why bother "proving you wrong"? I'm not even going to try to knock some sense into you. You're narcissistic about your own band saying that they're good, so you're in no freakin position calling others selfish.

What's your damn point? You won't take any proof of anything, so why bother "proving you wrong"? I'm not even going to try to knock some sense into you. You're narcissistic about your own band saying that they're good, so you're in no freakin position calling others selfish.

This post is facetious..

im not saying im not selfish, of course i am but so is every single human being.

Exactly what part of this is difficult for you to understand? You say "EVERYONE is selfish including YOU! prove me wrong". That includes the assumption that if no one can "prove you wrong", you are right. Look VERY carefully at the logical fallacy I pointed out for you...THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Wait, maybe that's the issue. Let me rephrase it for you: Just because evidence cannot be provided to prove something wrong does not automatically mean the statement uttered is right. That's like saying, "Because there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US since 9-11 it means the Patriot Act is working." This is logically wrong because it cannot be proven that the Patriot Act prevented another attack on America. The only thing that is proven is that there has not been an attack. It's possible that the terrorist haven't had the money or manpower to plan another one; it's also possible that the Patriot Act stopped an attack; but it's also possible that any attempted attack would have failed without the Patriot Act for other unplanned reasons (death of the participant, etc). You cannot automatically tie B to A if you cannot demonstrate the tie exists. Now, you say "EVERYONE is selfish including YOU! prove me wrong". What you are saying is that if you cannot be proven wrong, then you are right. That's not at all what it means, because it is MAYBE just a LITTLE possible that people don't want to argue with you because arguing with a blockhead is not the most fun activity. The heart and soul of debate is an open-mindedness, a willingness to accept it when you are proven wrong. You have repeatedly demonstrated, and Sir GH has so perfectly expressed the fact that you are not open to being proven wrong, because when you are you resort to another logical fallacy, ATTACKING THE ARGUER (Notice you still referred to me as "Sheep"). Why would anyone bother arguing with a person who isn't willing to admit they are wrong? Might as well be arguing with a dead person. You'll notice the circular nature of the argument then; since no proof would ever be good enough for you, there would be no way for you to admit defeat even if it were staring at you in the face. Now somewhere in your head you've decided that this makes you look strong and intelligent because you never lose the argument. When the truth is, you merely look like an idiot trying desperately to cling to some inner picture of strength. Our opinions on the matter of selfishness are irrelevant, because we know there is no point to expressing them. A lot of us here (myself, Sir GH, Joxer and others) love to engage in good, intellectual conversation and debates, which is why we still continue to give you the time of day. We are hoping that some day you will grow up enough to enter the adult arena of debate and intellectual conversation. That is why no one will debate this issue with you, TM. Your behavior has turned us all off to the idea, so we have our own debates within our group because we know how to handle it in a constructive manner. So do not blame anyone but yourself for the fact that no one will ever debate with you; you drove everyone away. I merely point out to you that the unwillingness of us to debate with you does not mean you are right; it means we recognize the futility of dealing with you and decide to expend our creative energies elsewhere, instead of wasting time on you.